The blog post paints a vivid picture of a slop volcano. We speak of code its authors never read, never share, and never accept patches. So the entire point of git is moot.

On the other hand, some lower-level tools have to be simple, reliable and efficient. Here, sharing is critical. Even the authors of the post shared some incremental improvements to git. Here, the slop-cannon-scalability story is moot.

I think git is becoming a protocol. One product can no longer cover these cases.

I... Unfortunately agree.

I am watching OpenAI's output, and while a lot of it is absurdly impressive, I can not even begin to imagine what kind of activity of theirs justifies a through-output of 5 petabytes of -GIT COMMITS-. That's not their data sets, that's not their models, that's not their math library. That's their code.

They're rengineering Git for scale, but like, why is there a demand for scale at all? If i saw an employee flipping the same number on an excel file over and over, I'd fire them, and yet they're perfectly happy running agents that do that and setting up meetings and writing blogposts about how much they improved their spreadsheet number randomization factory.

  "the entire point of git is moot"

What got us here won't get us there perhaps? Can you tell why open source started to exist in first place? Wasn't that a way to crowdsource manual labour, and this reason is not valid anymore, as cost of this spiecif labour is near zero?